I have been impressed by some red avatar's ability to make some pretty reasoned or fair arguments on here. Other times I wonder how some people could believe some of things they say on here. But that is just my viewpoint from what I've seen.

But I am genuinely curious what kind of breakdown we have on these forums. How many people are there on here that are the ultimate defenders of their side of the aisle or their current viewpoints? And how many people are there on here that are always persuaded by a well thought out argument?

Politics isn't about 'changing ones mind', it is about interests and compromises. I believe the rich kill and consume the poor every day and have since time immemorial, and that it makes sense from the poors' point of view to try to guillotine the rich. Now, a compromise between those two positions doesn't require that either side change their opinions.

Frankly, people with views that differ even slightly from mine make me almost physically sick. Because how can you go through life being so utterly wrong? Appalling. And how do I know that they're wrong? Because, of course, I am always right, or close enough.

Logged

"The Norwegians hate the Swedish and the Swedes they hate the FinnsThe Finns they hate the Russians and the Russians hate the YidsSpicks and Wops and Greasers; Kikes and Spades and Ginny HensHatred's blowin in the wind; 10 million outcasts"

In particular to those that answered the top 2(but anybody can answer) is there a particular style of argument you tend to prefer? Do you feel more comfortable "letting your guard down" among others that have similar views to your own or is it pretty equal no matter what their views are in relation to your own?

I feel comfortable letting my guard down around people of several different persuasions, but it's not all equal. For example, I often find it easier to talk to socons than fiscons (though not always) because of greater cultural affinity.

In particular to those that answered the top 2(but anybody can answer) is there a particular style of argument you tend to prefer? Do you feel more comfortable "letting your guard down" among others that have similar views to your own or is it pretty equal no matter what their views are in relation to your own?

I answered "moderately open minded."

I like when an expert tells me something. Like, if I'm arguing about how to pronounce something in chinese with another gringo, and a Chinese person steps in and says, "Well, it's like this..." then I usually shut up. Or, if I'm saying that this is what you need to do to please a girl, and my friend says, "no, you dork, this is what you should do..." and then an actual female walks in and says, "Well, you should actually do this..." then I shut up and listen.

For policy questions, I also listen to experts, but less. Because there's not usually a really objectively right answer about those, the way there is when it comes to things like speaking Chinese correctly, or giving a good tumble. Policy is usually just one person's prediction versus another's. But usually on policy questions, I listen politely to anyone who disagree with me, and if I start hearing something often enough, then I start to erode over time. For example, I used to think that we ought not to bail out the banks. This was back in fall 2008. Then, a bunch of smart posters like beet and jmfcst and others started ticking off the reasons why we should. And when I objected to their reasoning they'd offer rebuttals to my rationale. In the end, I started to be convinced that it was an acceptable thing to do, so long as there were strings attached.

I like when an expert tells me something. Like, if I'm arguing about how to pronounce something in chinese with another gringo, and a Chinese person steps in and says, "Well, it's like this..." then I usually shut up. Or, if I'm saying that this is what you need to do to please a girl, and my friend says, "no, you dork, this is what you should do..." and then an actual female walks in and says, "Well, you should actually do this..." then I shut up and listen.

For policy questions, I also listen to experts, but less. Because there's not usually a really objectively right answer about those, the way there is when it comes to things like speaking Chinese correctly, or giving a good tumble. Policy is usually just one person's prediction versus another's. But usually on policy questions, I listen politely to anyone who disagree with me, and if I start hearing something often enough, then I start to erode over time. For example, I used to think that we ought not to bail out the banks. This was back in fall 2008. Then, a bunch of smart posters like beet and jmfcst and others started ticking off the reasons why we should. And when I objected to their reasoning they'd offer rebuttals to my rationale. In the end, I started to be convinced that it was an acceptable thing to do, so long as there were strings attached.

Good answer. Much appreciated.

I think by "not usually a really objective answer about those" you are meaning to say something like "there is an objective correct answer to policy, but since many issues are so complicated and complex in a lot of cases how can most people tell", right?

Obviously there is a right answer to the question of do tax cuts or government spending better stimulate the economy. The problem is that their are so many things going on in the economy its not an easy thing to prove by either side. Doesn't mean that one isn't the right answer its just that it isn't settled yet.

And realize that 99% of all these questions are pretty much settled in American's minds, but then they are just not asked. If someone advocated doing nothing to a problem and another guy advocated burning all of the dollars in the country, like above there is a better option between the two. And unlike the issue above the American public would probably be 99.9999% on the side of the idea of doing nothing over burning money.

I think by "not usually a really objective answer about those" you are meaning to say something like "there is an objective correct answer to policy, but since many issues are so complicated and complex in a lot of cases how can most people tell", right?

Obviously there is a right answer to the question of do tax cuts or government spending better stimulate the economy. The problem is that their are so many things going on in the economy its not an easy thing to prove by either side. Doesn't mean that one isn't the right answer its just that it isn't settled yet.

And realize that 99% of all these questions are pretty much settled in American's minds, but then they are just not asked. If someone advocated doing nothing to a problem and another guy advocated burning all of the dollars in the country, like above there is a better option between the two. And unlike the issue above the American public would probably be 99.9999% on the side of the idea of doing nothing over burning money.

Fairly certain that's not exactly a topic of complete agreement, even among economists. Though, I'm sure you point here was to say that tax cuts clearly stimulate the economy better, no?

As for the original OP, I consider myself pretty open-minded. I like to hear what others have to say, because obviously I can't know every detail or fact. My opinions and views tend to evolve over time, much like most people IMO.

I think all will agree that in regards to most of these debated topics(outside of true values questions like gay marriage, abortion, etc.) the biggest problem as to why much isn't settled is the absence of a perfect control group. Its not like you can just create an exact replica of the United States to enact a different policy to measure the difference.

With the absence of that the world is just forced to continue to accumulate data differences between countries, periods, actions, etc. and very slowly draw on the differences. Or they are forced to develop proofs within the field to slowly make progress. The amount of time both of those take is much longer than other scientific fields.

Fairly certain that's not exactly a topic of complete agreement, even among economists. Though, I'm sure you point here was to say that tax cuts clearly stimulate the economy better, no?

No you misunderstood. Of course there isn't an agreement as to which one is better. But there should be almost universal agreement that one of those is better because there is only 2 possible answers to that question. The problem is that neither side has been able to completely "knock out" the other side with an argument, yet at least. The issue is again that the issue is to complex and complicated to be able to easily deliver that "knock out" argument.

And no that wasn't my point. My point was that one of those had to be better, and that its to complicated and complex for the answer to be settled, yet.

I think by "not usually a really objective answer about those" you are meaning to say something like "there is an objective correct answer to policy, but since many issues are so complicated and complex in a lot of cases how can most people tell", right?

I'm not so sure about that. For example, I think you could make some assumptions and show that the Chicago school had it all figured out, but with other assumptions you could show that Keynes was right.

Or, to use a better example, some folks would tell you that the doctrine of Pre-emption makes us safer since it destroys the threat before it has a chance to become significant, while others will argue that it diminishes our national security since it alienates our allies and also makes it harder for individuals (including US citizens) to trust the government.

Only time will tell which is the right answer, and sometimes not even time tells us the answer. For example, in another thread, we are still arguing about whether Fat Man and Little Boy saved more lives than they extinguished.

It also depends upon your goals. Yes, there's a right answer to the question "Will the wealth be more evenly distributed if everyone donates their savings to a communal fund and then we divide up that fund evenly between all people?" But that's not the sort of question policymakers generally ask. They're more likely to ask, "Will the nation's long-term economic security be more secure if our foremost goal is even wealth distribution?" That question may or may not have a clear-cut answer.

I'm not so sure about that. For example, I think you could make some assumptions and show that the Chicago school had it all figured out, but with other assumptionsyou could show that Keynes was right.

Or, to use a better example, some folks would tell you that the doctrine of Pre-emption makes us safer since it destroys the threat before it has a chance to become significant, while others will argue that it diminishes our national security since it alienates our allies and also makes it harder for individuals (including US citizens) to trust the government.

Only time will tell which is the right answer, and sometimes not even time tells us the answer. For example, in another thread, we are still arguing about whether Fat Man and Little Boy saved more lives than they extinguished.

It also depends upon your goals. Yes, there's a right answer to the question "Will the wealth be more evenly distributed if everyone donates their savings to a communal fund and then we divide up that fund evenly between all people?" But that's not the sort of question policymakers generally ask. They're more likely to ask, "Will the nation's long-term economic security be more secure if our foremost goal is even wealth distribution?" That question may or may not have a clear-cut answer.This is why we argue.

Well I think you are agreeing with my assessment. The situation is so complex that you can't easily definitely prove either of those 2 schools right with few exceptions(the Phillips Curve did get pretty much crushed in the 70s when its supporters argued for 30 years that what was happening was impossible). There are to many factors at play so many times completely different theories can both show the evidence they wanted.

Yeah that would probably take an extremely long time to ever come close to an answer on. I have no clue as to which is the better answer, but in theory 1 of those 2 answers has to be right by first defining "safer" and adding up the total likelihood of a negative event occurring because of the output of each decision. I pity the man that has to try to prove that one though.

1 time historical events are pretty impossible because you will likely never be able to relive anything remotely similar to build more evidence, your just stuck with the evidence from the one event. But a lot of policy questions are based on reoccurring issues not 1 time events(those are more historical questions).

Yes there are differences in goals. I think a better example is to find out if people care more about their standard of living increasing or wealth to be distributed more equitably. Would a person be okay with their own standard of living decreasing if at the same time the wealth/income gap was smaller?

**But you would be surprised how most of our debates are not in what we value, but how we go about addressing it. I don't really think you will find many people in this country that wants the economy, jobs, education, healthcare, funding retirement, public debt, etc. to get worse. So most of the debates are about how to best go about dealing with them.

In my convictions I'm as constant as the Sun though 'events' (9/11 saw me move right on national security and the 'Crash of 2008' leftwards on economics) but more tolerant of differences of opinion these days

I've gone through 'evolutions' in my world views - I was a pretty conservative teenager.

I think I'm probably more open-minded than I ever was, but I'm not without firm convictions.

And it generally has nothing to do with being 'convinced' it has to do with experiences.

By "conservative" are we referring to by the rest of the worlds standards or by Australia's because besides toilets flushing the opposite way than here, you do kind of have "backwards" parties in the sense that the "Liberal" party in Australia is the "conservative" party elsewhere.

I've gone through 'evolutions' in my world views - I was a pretty conservative teenager.

I think I'm probably more open-minded than I ever was, but I'm not without firm convictions.

And it generally has nothing to do with being 'convinced' it has to do with experiences.

By "conservative" are we referring to by the rest of the worlds standards or by Australia's because besides toilets flushing the opposite way than here, you do kind of have "backwards" parties in the sense that the "Liberal" party in Australia is the "conservative" party elsewhere.

Well it should be by the US's standards vs the rest of the world...

But yes, I was certainly much more socially and economically right leaning.

Logged

Dogma is a comfortable thing, it saves you from thought - Sir Robert Menzies

I voted moderately open-minded. I have some core principles about politics that I think have become fairly stable. But I'm open to arguments as to what are the best ways to fulfill those principles provided that the arguments appeal to evidence and are transparent about their working assumptions. Of course, every once in a while, a core principle can change too, but it happens less often to me now, which may be yet another depressing consequence of just getting older. Still, time can, and will, change all things. Therefore, wisdom dies whenever one stops learning from the world and others.

i'm a little open-minded. I could be convinced to vote for someone not of my party it just depends on the circumstances. My political beliefs aren't really beliefs but rather a disdain for the people who vote for the other party.

Very. I think the most important aspect of a successful political system is being open to new concepts and opposing strategies. The only things I'm 100% decidedly against are those based in faulty reasoning or motivated from a negative place. Other than that, I'd gladly consider any political suggestions. If I don't even bother to consider them, how can I be so sure they're wrong? Without giving proper acknowledgement of different beliefs, there is no understanding of them or a basis for legitimate opposition.